Life Cycle Assessment of Synthetic Natural Gas Production from Different CO 2 Sources: A Cradle-to-Gate Study

Eleonora Bargiacchi, Nils Thonemann, Jutta Geldermann, Marco Antonelli and Umberto Desideri
Additional contact information
Eleonora Bargiacchi: Department of Energy, Systems, Territory and Construction Engineering (DESTeC), University of Pisa, 56122 Pisa, Italy
Nils Thonemann: Fraunhofer Institute for Environmental, Safety, and Energy Technology, UMSICHT, 46047 Oberhausen, Germany
Jutta Geldermann: Business Administration and Production Management, University of Duisburg-Essen, 47057 Duisburg, Germany
Marco Antonelli: Department of Energy, Systems, Territory and Construction Engineering (DESTeC), University of Pisa, 56122 Pisa, Italy
Umberto Desideri: Department of Energy, Systems, Territory and Construction Engineering (DESTeC), University of Pisa, 56122 Pisa, Italy

Energies, 2020, vol. 13, issue 17, 1-17

Abstract: Fuel production from hydrogen and carbon dioxide is considered an attractive solution as long-term storage of electric energy and as temporary storage of carbon dioxide. A large variety of CO 2 sources are suitable for Carbon Capture Utilization (CCU), and the process energy intensity depends on the separation technology and, ultimately, on the CO 2 concentration in the flue gas. Since the carbon capture process emits more CO 2 than the expected demand for CO 2 utilization, the most sustainable CO 2 sources must be selected. This work aimed at modeling a Power-to-Gas (PtG) plant and assessing the most suitable carbon sources from a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) perspective. The PtG plant was supplied by electricity from a 2030 scenario for Italian electricity generation. The plant impacts were assessed using data from the ecoinvent database version 3.5, for different CO 2 sources (e.g., air, cement, iron, and steel plants). A detailed discussion on how to handle multi-functionality was also carried out. The results showed that capturing CO 2 from hydrogen production plants and integrated pulp and paper mills led to the lowest impacts concerning all investigated indicators. The choice of how to handle multi-functional activities had a crucial impact on the assessment.

Keywords: Carbon Capture Utilization; energy storage; Life Cycle Assessment; Power-to-Gas (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: Q Q0 Q4 Q40 Q41 Q42 Q43 Q47 Q48 Q49 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/17/4579/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/13/17/4579/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jeners:v:13:y:2020:i:17:p:4579-:d:408637

Access Statistics for this article

Energies is currently edited by Ms. Agatha Cao

More articles in Energies from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().